Solid State Lighting - New Inventors, ABC, 11 July 2007

I think the comments on the ABC website relating to this "invention" say it all.

It's nothing new. The exaggerated claims of efficiency are grossly exaggerated. There were some examples of how he could have done the "rectification". Again, none of them new.

One poster said it uses a new case. This is probably the only claim to fame the lamp fixture has.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622

**I did. My partner was laughing, as I sat there screaming at the TV.

**The guy CLAIMS to have invented some fancy new type of LED. I doubt it. What bothers me is that no figures were provided, to validate the claim. At best, high end LEDs (aka: LuxeonT emitters) are marginally more efficient than halogens (despite the bullshit in the Jaycar catalogue - which I have already called them about). That places them a long way behind fluoros and even further behind HID lighting.

Smells like bullshit to me. I'd like to see the numbers.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Franc Zabkar"

** Yep.

** The "inventor" was not prepared to demonstrate his claims - a simple comparison with say a 250 watt halogen ( PAR) lamp, a lux meter and AC watt meter is all that is needed to do that.

Seems he has not allowed ANYONE to do such a test, so his claims must be assumed to be essentially fake.

But the performance he spoke of is not impossible - by using the *very latest* white LEDs of 60 to maybe 100 lumens per watt ( probably not yet available commercially at sane prices) a powerful white LED light several times more energy efficient than an incandescent could be made using his array and AC drive method.

IMO - he was making his claims based on what COULD be done using his arrays IF fitted with such high efficiency LEDs and AFTER the prices have fallen to some projected base level off in the future.

So, he was grandstanding.

BTW

Of course his prototype arrays did not radiate heat like a incandescent amp - since all the heat is generated at a low temperature and not 2500 to 3000 degrees C.

....... Phil

From an entrepreneurial point of view he's doing all the right things, getting in early and preempting what technology is expected to be available within his timeframe. His biggest problem is likely to be the sheer volume of competition he'll encounter, or is already.

These mythical very latest hot off the shelf super efficient LEDS would only be a little better than the best of the LEDS available to mere mortal humans such as ourselves. So, for the purposes of explanation, one could use these LEDS instead and get numbers close enough to prove or disprove the inventors' claims.

Personally, I'm leaning towards disprove...

He could have used normal off the shelf leds, and said with what will be available soon, the results would be better. Instead, he chose to fib just a bit.

That's an understatement, yes? The way he made it look, you'd have to use technology years ahead of its time to get the "numbers".

No, because as far as I've been able to ascertain, LEDS are "about" as efficient as halogens, and that's better than normal incandescents.

What really gets on my goat, is they ALWAYS compare apples and oranges. They're two completely different technologies, and they don't place them alongside the technology that makes sense.

The numbers aren't good enough, and that doesn't sell. So let's mislead the customers instead.

No, that's degrees Kelvin, used to signify colour temperature, not the "heat" radiated from the lamp.

Where it does matter, is "his" LEDS use a different phosphor that gives a better spread of white light than previous incarnations.

They're not "his" leds. They never will be. And I don't think he made a deal with [insert semiconductor firm here] for exclusive use of those LEDs.

As per normal, another "inventor" does something uninteresting.

Shame really, sometimes they get some really good ideas happening, too bad airtime is occupied by idiots.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622

** They are not mythical and YOU a re an presuming ASS !!

See under: " Operational parameters and efficiency "

131 lumens per watt was demonstrated by Cree Inc in 2006.

150 lm/W is about to appear from otters in the game.

Double or more the basic efficiency of CFLs.

** Bollocks based on this fool's own bollocks. ** Totally irrelevant, what YOU think he could have done.

** The white LEDs needed are here, right now.

FOOL.

** Irrelevant drivel.

Both lose over 90% of the energy consumed as heat - mostly by radiation.

( snip more asinine drivel)

** The filament is the radiator and it runs at 2500 to 3000 C.

So the heat radiated is with that "colour temperature", ie mostly concentrated in the high IR band.

Go look up " black body radiation" - FOOL.

** Got NOTHING to do with lack of radiated heat - FOOL. ** Shame usenet is full of posturing

RATBAGS & IMBECILES like " Tjerkshis " .

....... Phil

"Bruce Varley"

** Only he ain't no "entrepreneur" - fact is he ain't any kind of player in the lighting game.

The dude is a teacher at bloody Granville TAFE !!

Plus he lives in the lower Blue Mountains - ie, geriatric hippyland.

BTW:

His " electronic insemination probe " must be a real DOOZEY !!

....... Phil

There have been some great "The publicity for presenting on the show is worth about $5000 of Advertising."

Joe

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention to who was posting before I replied. What I meant to say, was, "plonk".

--
Linux Registered User # 302622

"John Tjerkezis"

** They are not mythical and YOU are a presuming ASS !!

See under: " Operational parameters and efficiency "

131 lumens per watt was demonstrated by Cree Inc in 2006.

150 lm/W is about to appear from otters in the game.

Double or more the basic efficiency of CFLs.

** Bollocks based on this fool's own bollocks. ** Totally irrelevant, what YOU think he could have done.

** The white LEDs needed are here, right now.

FOOL.

** Irrelevant drivel.

Both lose over 90% of the energy consumed as heat - mostly by radiation.

( snip more asinine drivel)

** The filament is the radiator and it runs at 2500 to 3000 C.

So the heat radiated is with that "colour temperature", ie mostly concentrated in the high IR band.

Go look up " black body radiation" - FOOL.

** Got NOTHING to do with lack of radiated heat - FOOL. ** Shame usenet is full of posturing

RATBAGS & IMBECILES like " Tjerkshis " .

...... Phil

"Joe G (Home)"

** To that particular inventor - of course.

To others it may be worth much more or much less.

To someone with nothing yet to sell, it is a way of attracting an investor.

To someone with a silly idea that will never sell - it is a way to find a gullible investor and commit fraud.

Then, to someone like that Granville TAFE teacher - it is merely a giant ego trip.

...... Phil

Yeah, I wouldn't expect any better documentation that wikipedia. Doesn't exactly have the best reputation for data reliability.

Neither do you.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622

Not necessarily so benign. I've seen guys like this suck in mums and dads to put their nest egg in silly schemes. There are reams of shonky dealers out there, ready to engage eager inventors, get lots of gullible investors hooked, then skip off with the cash. No doubt some of them are keen watchers of TNI.

Caveat emptor.

"Bruce Varley"< "Phil Allison"

** Could not agree more.

But AFAIK now - this dude is just another narcissistic old fart seeking attention.

...... Phil

"John Tserkezis"

** Piss off - Tjerkshis FOOL.

....... Phil

I too feel very cynical about this "invention". The "inventor" seemed to be saying "This is good but I can't tell you any technical details because someone might pinch the idea. So just believe in it."

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:02:43 +1000, "Trevor Wilson" put finger to keyboard and composed:

AIUI his claim was in regard to the "architecture", which suggests packaging. OTOH, the ABC web site states that "Keith Higgins has led a team of Chinese scientists and technicians in the design of new LED lights that can turn more power into light, and less into ?waste? heat", so this suggests that either his *LEDs* are intrinsically more efficient, ie that his LEDs are some fancy new type (unlikely), or that the *light* is a more efficient design, ie a more efficient use of existing LED technology.

The only statement as to the efficiency of these new LEDs is that "Keith claims an 80% reduction in power necessary to run these lights". I presume this is in comparison with incandescents, not fluoros, which would make these LEDs no more efficient than other LEDs, but the article is ambiguous on this point.

... from an independent testing laboratory.

His ABC bio states that "he?s currently working on a new super-efficient car engine that will have only a handful of parts".

More snake oil?

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 13:26:31 +1000, "Phil Allison" put finger to keyboard and composed:

AIUI, he hasn't patented his idea, preferring to rely on secrecy to protect his IP. This begs the question, what is to prevent a competitor from reverse engineering his design? How complicated can it be? AFAICS, one would only need to monitor the LED current (in case he was using some elaborate controller ???), or dissect the optics to uncover the claimed "architectural" changes. The only way Higgins could feel reasonably safe is if his actual LED was an original semiconductor design.

- Franc Zabkar

--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

Sounds like a c*ck and bull story.